Re: [v6ops] Some comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bajpai-happy-00.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bajpai, Vaibhav <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> We understand it's a policy discussion to facilitate IPv6 adoption. We will
> add a section in the draft to clarify the motivation of RFC6555.
>

Actually, I think that's not enough, because I suspect the disagreement is
deeper than you think. "Effectiveness" implies performance compared to a
goal, but what Andrew is saying here is that latency minimization was
(within reason) not a goal at all. The goal was to avoid impact so we could
get on with enabling IPv6.

If you do want to measure this, I think you might have to call it something
other than "effectiveness". And to be pedantic, even with your definition
of "effectiveness", it's not the "effectiveness" of happy eyeballs that
you're measuring, you're comparing the "effectiveness" of IPv6 and IPv4.


> We argue that since applications on top of TCP will not be happy eyeballed
> only in scenarios where IPv6 connectivity is broken, but also in scenarios
> where the dual-stack host enjoys perfect IPv6 connectivity, we want to
> measure how much imposition does such a user experience in reality by
> measuring the effect of the 300ms timer value.
>

Actually, that's not a good definition either. If the dual-stack host
enjoys perfect IPv6 connectivity, then by definition IPv4 can never be
better (since IPv6 is perfect), the 300ms timer will never fire. So by
"perfect" I think what you really mean is "perfectly reliable".

>
> > On aggregate, thus, being *too* attentive to the user experience will
> paint a
> > bleak picture in the future by inhibiting IPv6 progress.
> > Please add this variable into your research model when you are doing the
> next
> > iteration!
>
> We understand. We will add a section describing this policy decision.
>

Please also change the wording as well.

Cheers,
Lorenzo